IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 PRAohNi:l kAhAaAndT RE6du9c0a2tJio nal vs. DCIT, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue by: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR Date of hearing: 14.0 8.2025 Date of p ronouncement: 2O2 R.0 9D.2 E0 R25 PER BENCH:

[

These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Lucknow dated 19.03.2024 and 22.03.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the A.Ys. 2017-18 and 2018-19, dismissing the appeals of the assessee against orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal are as uITnAd eNro:-. 181/LKW/2024 “(1).That the Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in not considering the fact that in the alleged assessment order, the columns of name of assessee, PAN, Asst year, date of assessment and section under which passed, are blank.

(2)That the Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in treating the demand as valid which was not computed on the basis of orderthat may not be termed to be an order under section 143(3).

(3) That a demand of tax as computed in the computation sheet is without jurisdiction void-ab-inito and is liable to be annulled.

(4) That the Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 736591857/-comprising  Corpus Donation aggregating to Rs 7,68,95,000/-,  Accumulation of Rs 22,00,00,000/- u/s 11(2),  Excess of income over expenditure upto 15% of gross receipts at Rs

18,18,45,924/- claimed as exempt u/s 11(1) of the Act  purchase cost of Fixed Assets, during the year under consideration, aggregating to Rs 14,96,91,583 less depreciation at Rs 1,55, 15,994/-

 cash deposits aggregating to Rs 5,59,55,800/-

 10% of the aggregate expenses of Rs 67,71,95,436/-which comes to Rs

6,77,19,543/- considering the possibility of Revenue Leakage on account of such huge unverified expenses.

And thus confirming the demand that is raised.

(5) That the entire demand of Rs. 35,32,80,589/- is infructuous and without jurisdiction and is liable to be deleted.

(6) That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal.”

ITA No.182/LKW/2024

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the leaned authorities below is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. authorities is without jurisdiction and needs be annulled.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter of jurisdiction of Ld. A.O. is subjudice. As such the order passed by Ld. AO is against law.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed by the leaned authorities below is in violation of the principle of natural justice and without giving adequate time and opportunity to the assessee to represent its case and to file its replies and clarification, is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below have erred, both on facts and in law, in making assessment at an income of Rs.

50,48,01,279 as against NIL income declared by the assessee.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below have erred, both on facts and in law, in making the assessment in the status of AOP as against the status of the Charitable Trust claimed by the assessee.

7. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below have erred, both on facts and in law, in adding the excess of income over expenditure amounting to Rs.30,48,01,279 in the income of the assessee, thereby denying it the exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

(ii) That the exemption under section 11 of the Act has been disallowe